Immagration Reform - Not

Politiciians all claim the fix to the illegal immigration problem is comprehensive immigration reform - but that is pure political nonsense.

We do not have an immigration problem, we have a law enforcement and a border control problem.

I've heard a few talking heads say this same thing.  The problem is the politicians, including the current batch of GOP Presidential candidates are keeping with the reform line - a line both parties have been repeating fior serveral decades.

In fact, in the late 1980's it was immigration reform, along with social security reform and right-sizing the income tax code, that led me to believe the political mindset is to make the voters aware of a problem, espouse ways they will fix the problem and then shelve it until the next election cycle.  Then they rehash the same problems while blaming the opposition for blocking your "efforts".  Actually fixing any problem is a double-whammy against their reelection bid.  First, they would liose two valuable tools - an issue & someone else to blame.  This would require dreaming up, or creating, new issues to talk about.

Back to immigration.

This time most are supporting closing the southern border and enforcing the law  One or two are claiming the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it says.  Beware of those guys - they, like President Obama, will not respect other laws and requirements of the US Constitution.

The real fix is to rid ourselves of politicians who can only pay lip service to the voters while accomplishing the demands of their deep pocked supporters.

We don't need immigration reform - we need political reform.

US Senators Obliged to Support The Ghoulish Profiteers at Planned Peranthood.

Here is a list of some of the most disgusting human being alive today. Naturally, they are members of the United States Congress - supposedly our representatives. They can only give thanks that there was no one like them in the months proceeding their own birthdays.

If any of these are yours, please vote them out of office.  I will give Majority leader McDonnell a pass on this  - his vote was a procedural device that will allow him to bring this up for a vote again.

From the US Senate's Roll Call Page
"U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114^th Congress - 1^st Session"
"On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1881 ), Measure Title: A bill to prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America."

NAYs --- 46
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Gun Control, Doctors, and The Daily Show.

A friend forwarded a Daily Show segment mocking a rule that Florida Governor Rick Scott signed in law.  The law is designed to protect the Second Amendment Right of the people to possess firearms by removing it from the list of information doctors can gather from patients. 

The jocularity included asking medical personnel if gun owners were acting paranoid and afraid of being on government lists.  I say, "Who wants to be on government list?" as government lists only help politicians and special interest groups.

While all this may seem like a minor thing on its surface, let's remember that there are many anti-gun organizations and many anti-gun political action committees (PAC's)  who support politicians who are also very anti-gun. These groups will gather information to gin up their own special brand of misinformation to prey on the concerns of all Americans in an effort to eventually remove firearms and the ability to defend themselves (ourselves) from all law abiding citizens. Well, except their own body guards (Sen. Diane Feinstein, D- CA).

The real paranoia lies with the anti-gun crowd.

Anyhow, here is the Daily Show's humorous "report".

Oh, and to Governor Rick Scott - Thank you for something that is good for Floridians and a model for other states. 

F.C.C. Net Neutrality Rules GOP Caves - Letter to Representative

My letter to my representative with my thoughts on net neutrality and the US Congress.  Fell free to copy and send it to your representative.

Dear Representative Buchanan.

What is going on?  Net Neutrality is another Orwellian move by government to control yet another facet of American life and is completely unnecessary.  Accessing the internet using private businesses has worked nearly perfectly - with competition setting the speed and costs.

One excuse for this takeover as reported by the news is to prevent a company, such as Verizon, from monopolizing the infrastructure.  This is total nonsense as market pressure and the law as it already exists would prevent such a thing from happening.  When government takes control we can be assured that it would take weeks or months instead of days to establish an account and a connection, as opposed to the couple of minutes it takes now. Just look at the Keystone pipeline -6 years to investigate and they are still not satisfied.  Also, we know this administration cannot comprehend internet issues as seen in their ACA rollout, and it is still not working correctly.

One has to ask, 'what is the impetus for enacting such regulations?'  The first thing that comes to mind is someone or some company with a very deep pockets is paying someone in government to make this happen for their own benefit.  I cannot think of a business that could benefit, so it must be a group such as politicians?  Democrats?  Republicans?

These rules, which no one representing me has ever voted on, will become law with Republicans showing their weakness in the face of this criminal administration. We will see another widely used commodity become too expense for average Americans, over regulated by bureaucrats who could not care less – think VA – and with oversight by those with zero intestinal fortitude.

I think it's time to elect new congresspersons.  The ones we have now are failing us at every turn.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Read the story here : http://goo.gl/Amh2XG

Best idea ever? Sign the petition for debt-free college - Probably Not

The title, "Best idea ever? Sign the petition for debt-free college", is from an email from the Daily Kos.  They believe that having taxpayers pick up the tab for the two year drinkfest by young adults is good thing and want anyone they can influence to sign their petition.

"Petition Text - Our Message to Congressional Democrats
We support free community college as a first step toward debt-free college at all public institutions of higher learning. This is the kind of big idea that Americans are crying out for and need to see more of from Democrats. If you fight, we will fight alongside you."

This plan is another way to remove wealth, freedom and personal responsibility from more Americans.  It seems that this is the goal of all progressive ideas - less personal responsibility and a lack of discipline where someone else picks up the bill - and make no mistake, there will be a bill. The bill for the freeloader's education will be paid by taxpayers.  This is a problem as more and more people live off the labor of others there will a time when there aren't enough workers to carry the takers and the system will collapse.

Update:  The best written article about this subject is by Ann Coulter, titled "As Long as Obama Brought Up the Cost of College...".  Read and believe.

"Armed Felon Allowed On Elevator With the President" - The Kosian View

I was interested in the event that saw an armed person with a criminal history in an elevator with the President of the United States and a notice from the Daily Kos arrived in my inbox listing the above title, among others.

What I found even more interesting was the way the author "quoted" the quote and his take on it in his "diary".

Mr. Th0rn notes...

"To top it off, there's Politico's outrageous take on the whole clusterf*uck.Josh Marshall at TPM sums up how they cover the story:

All of which is to say that on this topic Kessler [writer of the Politico article] is simultaneously a genuine expert and a bit of a kook.

So here's the kicker at the end of the piece.

Agents tell me it’s a miracle an assassination has not already occurred. Sadly, given Obama’s colossal lack of management judgment, that calamity may be the only catalyst that will reform the Secret Service. (bolding is mine)

Read that a few times.

So Obama is at fault for his inevitable assassination, or he's the only thing standing in the way of cleaning up the agency responsible for his inevitable assassination.There's a lot packed into that two sentence flourish. But all of it is deeply f'd up.

"All of this is really getting well over the line of any kind of normality. WTF is going on?"

Mr. Th0rn is concerned that Kessler has gone over the line, but it is Mr. Th0rn and Mr. Marshall who go over the line.  

How? By the lie of omission.  

They both leave out the part where Kessler suggests a uniting of Dems and GOP to correct the problem before a tragedy strikes.

Here is the full quote. Tell me if Mr. Kessler went "over the line of any kind of normality".

"Agents tell me it’s a miracle an assassination has not already occurred. In typical Washington fashion, nothing gets reformed until a disaster happens. If anything unites Republicans and Democrats, it is that nobody wants to see a tragedy: We all just want the Secret Service fixed."

When reading Mr. Kessler's article it is apparent that he believes the fault lies with the president as the president had stood by the leadership of Ms. Pierson, Director of the US Secret Service.

He says, "Despite the obvious danger to himself and his own family, President Obama refuses to replace Pierson." 

I believe I have an answer to this.  President Obama does not fire people.  First he would have to be in charge to fire people, and second, firing people may create enemies and Ms. Pierson is probably privy to a load of insider information that Obama's staff would not like to see in the news.

I recommend reading the full original article at Politico and then making up your own mind.

Mr. Th0rn asks what is going on? 

To Mr. Th0rn.  What is going on is the deliberate mischaracterization of a story to further your own adopted agenda - the progressive agenda - which calls for any perceived opposition comment or opinion to be squashed. 

And always, always, progressives must call people who they dislike names and never miss an opportunity try to marginalize them.  Here Mr. Marshall calls Mr. Kessler a "kook" and claims he is over the line of any kind of normalcy. So who is the kook?

Professor Charles Angeletti - Hate America First

In the 'hate America first crowd we have Professor Charles Angeletti, at the Metropolitan State University of Denver, who required students to recite an anti-America 'pledge of allegiance' (Daily Caller 12/09/2014).

"I pledge allegiance to, and wrap myself in, the flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American and to the Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all, except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don’t watch your step.” (reprint from the Daily Caller)

 This interesting as the professor seems to think that the Republican Party is the enemy of America - why else would he single them out? - This, as opposed to the Democratic Party, who, since 1968 have been gathering up fringe groups and tearing down the contract that made the USA the world power that it is today. And I am not talking about slavery, American Indians or voting rights.  But rather this exceptional country, its unique establishment and people who built and occupy it.  While the Republican Party has become Democrat light - Democrats are still the prime movers of a degraded justice system and a complete disregard for the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Maybe I am one of those dreadful people he refers to as "against anything un-American" since I am against any political system that differs from our own.  I like the idea of a government that is answerable to the people.  Remember the line "government of the people, by the people, for the people..."1.?  This country is the only country in existence where the people are the authority - where the people have the power that we loan, temporarily, to elected officials in order to run the country.

He says this country "stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor..." 

On this I believe the professor needs a more widely sourced education.  He seems to be a student of progressive propaganda, where the evil rich are stealing from the helpless poor.  That would be pure nonsense but for progressive policies.  But then, most of the "rich" got that way through hard and/or smart work (the exception being politicians who become rich by using the influence their jobs provide. Progressives love making rich politicians).  Even the ones that inherited their wealth, who progressives are envious of, received their wealth from someone who earned it. Don't you want to leave more for your children than you had as a child?  No? What's the matter with you.

The poor in America have just as good a chance of becoming wealthy, or just becoming non-poor (as I did), using the exact same methods - hard and/or smart work.  The real enemy of the poor are the politicians who coddle with unearned freebies and laws that give advantages to their wealthy friends. Americans have been trained to believe that Democrats are the party of the working man - of unions and fair play.  In 2014 we can safely say - not so much.  We get plenty of lip service to the "middle class" but their actions do not comport with that narrative.

For decades now I have listened to the political propaganda that Democrats are going to fix this program or that problem.  They have been going to fix Social Security program for as long as I can remember.  It was a campaign issue in the mid-1980's.  Every election cycle they were going to fix it.  In 1994 it occurred to me that most politicians whip up voters with their promises to fix Social Security, deficit spending, healthcare, on and on.  But then it never really gets done - never.  I conclude they never intend to fix anything.

If they fix it then what will they help us with after that?  Well, invent another crisis of course. But that means more work, so better just to keep the ones we have.

With this, "with curtailed liberty and justice for all,"

Professor  Angeletti, the loss of liberty is due to progressive policies that empower government to remove power and financial stability from Americans.  Also, there can be no justice when progressives use the government to promote special interests and outlaw common sense .

"... except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you if you don’t watch your step."

There you have your list of special interests that progressives pander to, but never actually help. It is no wonder you are horribly confused, and it's a shame that you are charged with teaching mushbrained students.








1. From the Gettysburg Address, given by President Abraham Lincoln.

Amnesty for Illegals - Does Anyone Have to Follow the President's Extra-Constitutional Executive Orders?

I just have to wonder why any federal department head would follow the edicts handed down by the president when they know the executive order is not lawful?

In my time in the US Army, I knew that I was under no obligation to follow unlawful orders, and could be prosecuted if did violate the law. Cabinet and department heads should know this as well.

The US Congress is the check on executive overreach. The US Congress should bring criminal charges against any department head who implements illegal orders handed out by their leaders.

PSU - College Promtes Free Speech, As Long As They Agree With The Message

Interestingly, when the Black Student Caucus at Penn State staged a protest, the Penn State President Eric Barron raises hands for student protest but when the Young Americans for Freedom a PSU student group wants to educate students on PSU's free speech policies on one of 12 small designated "free speech zones", they were told to pack up and leave by campus security. Student Activists Told To Remove Table From Penn State 'Free Speech Zone' (Video)

Progressive academia.  Penn State wins the Orwell award for proclaiming freedom while practicing restriction.

Petition the EPA - Daily Kos reveals their Naivete

The Daily Kos wants everyone to "sign" their petition, Titled, "Support the EPA's first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants" (Here), to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, claiming you can actually influence policy change.

Nonsense.

My first problem with this approach is that I see no money changing hands, so politicians and bureaucrats will most likely ignore it.

Second - when this kind of 'law' is implemented, only the wealthy and their politicians will be better off.  Just look to former VP AL Gore, who 'earned' hundreds of millions of dollars selling global warming fear.  Hard working Americans will pay more for energy, as we do now.

Third - their controls only affect American power plants and American power plants are the most efficient in the world.  Our coal fired power plants are heavily regulated already. Coal fired power plants in China have no visible pollution controls. China produces 40% of the worlds coal fired power generation about twice as much as the USA's total at 20.5% (reference).

Fourth - and probably the most important fact to remember is, that if this country does nothing more than we are already doing in the area of influencing climate change, the sea level may rise 2 to 3 feet in the next hundred years.

The question then becomes: Who does this affect?

Let's see, rising sea levels would affect coastlines, oceanfront properties, and lowlands, that would realize a loss of land mass.  So, if you own oceanfront or seaside property you may need to move it back a little - a very expensive proposition.  But, then you are probably wealthy and so I don't care if you have to build a dyke or move to higher ground.

If you live in a low land, you have no doubt experienced flooding in the past.  I know the folks who live along the Mississippi River and its many of its tributaries have. And yet you rebuild in the same place - usually demanding my tax dollars for their disaster relief.  Why do we keep paying people, essentially encouraging them, to repeat the mistakes that put them in such a bad place. I've heard them on the news being praised for their bravery when they claim they will rebuild in the same spot that was just washed down to the Gulf of Mexico. Time for some tough love, I'd say.

Everyone else will do as humans and animals have always done: adjust to the situation - dress cooler, get more efficient AC, move north, move to higher ground (except the stubborn ones - who would soon be extinct), etc.

Number five - If you sign this petition you will be on record as being a mind-numbed low-information follower of lost causes - i.e., a Kosian.

Climate change is mostly a non-issue and those who promote hamstringing the US economy - making more Americans poor so they can be rich - in order to see their dream come true are doing nothing but living in a child-like dream world where their little minds are accepted as forward thinking intellectuals - someone is watching too many Disney movies.

Media Matters - The Don Quixote of Media Reporting.

I receive emails from Media Matters (MM) for America - the leftwing merry-go-round that spins the news for delicate progressive egos.

In their latest they have discovered that Fox News Channel is affiliated with multiple local television news programs and warn you to beware of conservative distortions reaching broadcast markets.

They do this with all the seriousness they can muster.

"Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes' 21st Century Fox owns and operates 28 stations in major media markets around the country. These stations might seem independent, but Fox uses them to push misinformation to viewers like you." - Media Matters

They title their plea as "Fight Misinformation On Local News", but then provide no (that's zero) misinformation coming from local Fox affiliates.  This includes the video on their web page.  They urge you to  watch and learn, but there is no there there. It shows clips of local reporters talking about a few political issues - but no partisan slant - no information at all.  MM cuts the clips short and we only hear the topic - Benghazi, etc.

They want you to join their campaign to make everyone aware that the same rich guy that owns Fox news Channel also owns these local news programs and therefore his influence must be there - if only they could find something to backup their fantasy.

Sorry MM.  Nothing to see here.  So, back to the drawing board.

Edit: More Media Matters mayhem from the honorable folks at Breitbart.com
"Trigger Warning! Media Matters Scolds Roll Out Lies For Thanksgiving"

Letter to Representative Vern Buchanan - Extra-Constitutional Executive Orders

Sent 11/22/2014
Dear Representative Buchanan.

I fail to understand how members of congress, reporters and opinion makers,  believe the president can get away with bypassing the US Congress.  He needs to be stopped in his tracks.  To do so I would suggest charging anyone in this administration with a crime for trying to enforce or implement unconstitutional executive orders.

I spend 21 years in the US Army and I know that there is no rule or regulation that requires carrying out orders and directives that are unlawful. Anyone in a position of trust and responsibility should understand this as well.

If the head of DHS implements the president's change to immigration law, he should be brought before congress and forced to explain his unlawful actions. Hefty fines should be levied and other actions such as impeaching department heads. The same goes for any federal department head who violates the law.

The president's actions show a clear contempt for our representative republic.  His proclamations need to be nipped in the bud before the executive branch makes congress and the people irrelevant.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best Evidence of Progressive/Liberal Expert Deceit - Professor Jonathon Gruber of MIT

It seems everyone wants/needs to trust experts, tenured professors and professionals to determine what is best for them. We also have a tendency to believe our elected representatives.  But it seems they cannot be trusted. That trust had little to do with the passage of the ACA (ObamaCare).  When it passed, the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency -  with 60 votes in the US Senate, the GOP could not stop the disastrous ACA from passing. At that time, the only people who needed convincing were the Democrats is the US Congress.  (By the way, those Democrats were already convinced, they just needed to work out the details of who gets paid what amount in exchange for voting for this albatross)

The American people aren't "stupid".  We knew as much about ACA as President Obama and Rep. Nancy "we have to pass it to know what's in it" Pelosi, which is - to be gentle - not much.

So now we have Professor Gruber happily telling folks that American voters are too stupid to understand the economics of ObamaCare.  Of course, again, we know as much or more about economics as President Obama, so I wonder if there isn't some underlying thought process going with Mr. Gruber that makes him direct his insults at the voters?  Of course, he does not have to get voters to like or support him, he just needs the politically powerful to pay him - and to heck with the rest.

But Mr. Gruber has done the country an invaluable service - He has outed the political elites with his too stupid message.  The voters needed to know that our beloved politicians are much more concerned with obtaining, expanding and retaining power, than they are with the concerns of the American population.  They will tell us anything - any lie - and tell it with conviction, just to keep their power.  Here is all the evidence you need to know that politicians lie, they do it deliberately - make no mistake, ObamaCare is about power and control.

From one of the "architects" of ObamaCare, Professor Jonathan Gruber.

"Democrats Who Once Praised ObamaCare Architect Gruber Now Can’t Run Away From Him Far or Fast Enough" - ijreview.com, 11/18/14 w/video mash-up from the Washington Free Beacon

GRUBER: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." Jonathan Gruber, October 17, 2013, video posted by AmericanCommitment Published on Nov 7, 2014

Legislators Amused at Vermonters' Concerns Uploaded on Feb 20, 2011 by TrueNorthReports 

"Dr. William Hsaio and his team testify at House Health Care Committee hearing on February 18, 2011. Chairman Mark Larson (D-Burlington) reads a letter from a Vermont constituent concerned about a single-payer system."  Description by TrueNorthReports (Prof. Gruber mocks a Vermonter's question)

Obamacare Architect: No State Exchange = No Subsidies; Blatant Enough- Jonathan Gruber, January 18, 2012, video posted by AmericanCommitment

"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this." - Prof. Gruber

What else do we need to know that the political and academic elite in this country think the rest of us are stupid and need their wise counsel to live our lves because, you know, we are too stupid in their eyes.

28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Why Not

There is and email making the rounds calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require any legislation that congress makes or modifies would apply fully to them as it would apply to anyone else. As circulated, it reads:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

I believe this is a great idea and would be happy to give credit to the author, if that person were known. On the other hand, Snopes.com is dismissive of the idea"grading it "Mostly False", citing extraneous issues that have been lumped into the equal application of the law amendment.

Obama - Lazy Americans

Obama said. "We've kind of taken for granted -- 'Well, people would want to come here' -- and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America." Story at ABC News

Dear Mr. President. Foreign businesses are not flooding the gates because someone continually demonizes successful businesses, won't lower the highest corporate taxes in the world, and keeps adding red tape and regulation to stifle the job creators.

Mr. President, I'm afraid the problem is not laziness. The problem is you, your ideology and the mindset of your political party.

Thank you for your support.

There psychological terms to describe this president, and they would not enhance his public image.

Defining a Successful Presidency

After the presidential elections back in 2008, Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Obama would fail.  Of course this brought lots of negative comments that the legacy and new age media were happy to replay, reprint, misstate and all with their own special brand of opinion attached.  Mr. Limbaugh's comments were in response to President-elect Obama's promise to "fundamentally change America".

OK, so what would exemplify a successful or a failed administration?  It depends on your political or ideological reference. Let's look


Conservative on what a successful or failed presidency would entail

If you are a rank and file conservative, you would define a 'failed presidency' as one where ...
- we created more enemies around the world while giving them the impression that we can't or won't defend ourselves
- many Americans can no longer find gainful employment
- government must step in and "care" for more and more Americans
- government treats people unequally under the law
- illegal aliens are given a free pass with benefits
- our people are murdered in foreign countries with no subsequent response from us
- we go out of our way to illegally return 5 terrorists in leadership positions to fight against us
-  religion is removed from the public arena
- the Federal Reserve does not hand over hundreds of billions of unfunded taxpayer dollars to large, too big to fail, financial institutions and tacking the amounts to the national debt

While a successful presidency might be one where ...
- other nations and groups respected the USA, or at least were hesitant to launch attacks against us
- the leader of the free world built confidence among the people and gave them high hopes for the future.
- one where the proven strategies, traditions and common sense ruled over change for the sake of change and political expediency.
- people and groups were not persecuted for having opposing views.
- the economy didn't suffer due to ever more regulations and higher taxes.
-  the people didn't suffer because we were not being treated equally under the law.
-  government stayed out of individual lives as much as possible.
- and the church and private charities, rather than the government, were the charitable organization.


Progressive on what a successful or failed presidency would entail

A progressive might believe that the administration had failed if ...
- there are more wealthy Americans, an expanding middle class, and higher wages
- there are fewer countries appeared to be friendly towards us and our allies were unsure that we had their back
- there will be no universal healthcare
- he did not stop the use of fossil fuels
- we had to spend money on our military
- he did not make conservatives and religion irrelevant
- and if he does not turn all unused land and temporary bodies of water (puddles and ditches) into environmentally protected zones

On the other hand they might conclude that the presidency was successful if the president's administration ...
- did reduce the number of "rich" people and increase the number of governmentally dependent
- enacted a "living wage" requirement
- spend much more money on the "poor" and poor illegal aliens
- drastically reduced the size and budget of the military
- where more countries pretended to like us
- removed personal responsibility from everyone and made life one happy day after another with the benevolent government taking care of everything.

My Rating of the Obama administration's 6 years in office

I would grade the Obama administration as a failure due to their record of...
- the slowest job growth in the history of the country
- for encouraging twelve million adult Americans to give up on finding a job
- for touting millions of jobs created where almost half are part time jobs and many being entry level wage jobs with no benefits
- for leading from behind
- for constantly blaming others for the problems they cannot solve
- for losing the peace in the Middle East
- for bowing to foreign heads of state
- for adding more to the national debt than all the other 43 preceding presidents combined
- for increasing by half the number of families on government assistance
- for transferring trillions of dollars directly to the banks that caused the economic strife in 2008 while leaving the middle class hanging with lot jobs, homes and savings/equity - giving that to the banks as well (we wouldn't Wall Street to lose their bonuses)
- and for believing that they have to lie and hide what they are doing from the American people.

The Daily Kos - Hyper-liberal

The Daily Kos has decided what is real and what isn't.  They will claim that the President never lied about ACA (ObamaCare) and Benghazi and that he and his cabinet and appointees are only trying to help Americans.  To further this meme the Kos is laced with mischaracterizations, lies, fabrications and fairy tales - all sprinkled with a generous amount of name-calling, stereotyping and hate speech.  And yet, they are the open minded ones.

Maybe not so much. Look at this.

"The conservative movement has spent years designing an alternate reality for its membership. It's a universe in which climate change isn't real, but the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a full-blown cover-up. In this universe, Mitt Romney had the 2012 presidential election in the bag, the Affordable Care Act is still a massive failure, and every single conspiracy theory about the left isn't just a theory: it is simply known, with no citations necessary. As Paul Harris wrote after his encounter with the 2013 edition of CPAC:" - Daily Kos - Dante Atkins

Let's see - Alternate reality - It seems to me that this is exactly what the left does in order to maintain their belief system and their support among voters. Further, from my perspective it looks as though they project their own mindset and activities onto those who they oppose.  They labeled themselves as liberals - an Orwellian term when applied to their political ideology as liberals are the least open minded Americans that can be found.  If you try to talk to them about any topic that they oppose they will do whatever they can to shut you up.  They will expel you from commenting on their forums if you point out any facts that contradict what they are posting and they will try to marginalize you with slurs including racism, homophobia and even deride you if you are religious.

"a universe in which climate change isn't real"

 That is the standard line from progressives whenever the topic comes up. I know of no Republican or conservative who does not believe the climate is changing.  I believe the climate is changing.  I believe it is always changing.  To be clear, the problem is not believing it's changing, the problem is that progressives do not mind bankrupting this country, using apocalyptic scare tactics with no regard to the safety and security of everyone in the country and including those in foreign countries as well, to move forward with their expensive self-serving climate change agenda.

"the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a full-blown cover-up."

The fact is it was a cover up. Highly placed Whitehouse staff, and including State Department staff, deliberately scrubbed the narrative for Benghazi and then send Ms. Rice out to the Sunday news programs, instead of the scheduled appearance by the Secretary of State - Hilary Clinton, and sold a fabrication about some video that no one ever heard of - certainly no one in Benghazi, Libya - because there was an election coming up.  A terrorist attack would destroy the administration's "Al Quaida is decimated and on the run" narrative.

"Mitt Romney had the 2012 presidential election in the bag"

With President Obama's record Romney should have - and his campaign was keeping their spirits up until election day. But again, I know of no one who was betting that he 'had it in the bag' before election day.  That is a narrative created by the left for the express purpose of discounting and deriding - just as is being done at the Kos now.

"the Affordable Care Act is still a massive failure"

It is a failure if its actual intent was to save medical dollars and make it affordable for everyone.  Here is what it was said and what happened.
- It will lower insurance premiums - Premiums increased by 30% for those who were able to sign up and could afford the payments.
- More people will ave access to healthcare - there are no more people having access to healthcare than there was before.  The Whitehouse estimate of 12 million new ACA enrollees reflects the number of people who lost their insurance plan because of ACA rules.  In fact because of the extraordinarily high deductibles and limited doctor/hospital pool the plans allow, fewer people are likely to have access to healthcare providers.

lies:
- ACA will reduce premiums $2500 per average family - Oops, it went up by that much.
- Keep your doctor - Nope.
- Keep your insurance plan - Not so much.
- Won't increase  the national debt- Sorry, the mechanism that makes it affordable is supplementing the premiums with tax dollars. And they still cannot afford it.

"every single conspiracy theory about the left isn't just a theory: it is simply known, with no citations necessary."

Hmmm.  Does Mr. Atkins  realize that he has posted his conspiracy without any citations?  BTW: using the writings of other progressives, who themselves do not demonstrate any relation to facts or reality, are not qualifiable as legitimate sources.

As for his source, Paul Harris

"This is a world where it is seriously believed that the United Nations is trying to take over the US, and Obama is a Kenyan socialist, an Islamist, a Marxist or the biological son of communist-sympathiser Frank Marshall Davis. This is a world where Obama wants to take away all guns, where he has dictatorial powers worthy of an emperor and where the US media is a liberal conspiracy pushing abortions and being gay. This is the world where Glenn Beck, former Fox TV host turned popular publisher of The Blaze website, is hugely powerful and shock jock Rush Limbaugh is king. "

 Conservatives don't believe the UN is trying to take over the US, they are trying to drain us of as much of our value as they can.  Former General Secretary Kofi Atta Annan got away with Billions (Iraqi Oil for Food program embezzling by his son, Kojo) - all sent to the UN to help manage the world.  If the UN had a take-over plan, it would be for the entire world.  They are never described as leading a country, they are described as "The World Body".

We do not believe Obama is a born Kenyan, he is a Kenyan-American, born in Hawaii.  And there is much disagreement over describing Obama's political leanings (socialist, communist, Marxist, totalitarian, etc.).  Personally, I believe he is under someone's thumb who is trying to turn this country into a totalitarian utopia where government controls every aspect of human life, where the in-crowd lives high on the hog and the rest support their comfort.

Recall President Obama saying is the congress doesn't do something he would use his pen and his phone?  What do you think that means? I do not believe President Obama has actual "dictatorial" powers.  I do believe that he believes he has such power and the authority to use it.

These are M. Harris' beliefs, but they are simply wrong, but he and they don't care.  They have their narrative and they are sticking to it. They need to demonize their opposition in order to get any support at all.  If liberal politicians weren't distracting and blaming others, their own failures would be front page news.

Oh wait - the US media, Mr. Harris rightly states, pushes abortion and homosexuality instead of reporting the deconstruction of the country's heart and purpose by self-serving Democrats and compliant Republicans.  I call them the legacy media as they have become relics of the past who no longer live up to their charter, but instead, support politics that they agree with by their silence on issues that matter and their front-paging of issues and politicians they oppose.

Oh and by the way, Rush Limbaugh is the king of talk radio and nothing else.  If he were king of the Republicans, they wouldn't be compromising with mushbrained leftists for fear of being demonized in the press.

Leftist Juveniles: This Is What Passes for Progressive Political Speech

I inadvertently came across a blog entitled "Nameless GenX Blog" with a post titled "The Republican Party Platform for 2012 in One Tidy PDF"*. It is interesting in its complete lack of adult intellect and factual information. Closer to a juvenile rant against all things misunderstood and regurgitated with all the honesty that can be mustered by someone who is not only a propagandist and Cool Aid swiller, but has become the Cool Aid pitcher containing all of the available pseudo-juice.

I was filled such memorable lines as, "In Republican ‘merka, freedom applies only to white, male, Fundamentalist Christians and/or Fortune 500 Corporations to whom The Bush Supreme Court® has granted human status.

This sentence holds many misconceptions and revelations. 'Merka" leads by indicating a hatred for this country (America). When people use the letter "k" in place of the "c" in America I see their attempt to marginalize this country. These folks do not like what they see here, but become tongue tied when asked to show a better model (because there is none).

He then mistakenly claims that the GOP will deny freedom to anyone who is not a Caucasian Republican like them and their rich friends. Never mind that there are more wealthy Democratic Party Congresspersons than GOP has and the GOP is the majority in the US House. Additionally, he leaves out the fact that President Obama, has rich CEO's on his list of "czars" whose corporations pay very little in taxes (GE).

The reality is the GOP and the Democratic Party both take contributions from wealthy sponsors, lobbyists and PAC's. The history is that the party in power gets the most money and this, I suspect, is why there is such warlike partisan battles going on for every elected office.

He envisions as country where everyone other than Republicans will be denied rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. Of course, there is about zero evidence to prove that idea and he doesn't even know how to describe socialist government programs. His examples of socialist government programs include...

"(roads, bridges, tunnels, military to invade sovereign countries so as to confiscate their oil, police and fire protection for their walled estates, trash removal, snow removal, food tasting, etc.)"

If he should read this I would like to point out to him that roads, bridges, tunnels (infrastructure) and the military are not socialist programs, but are specifically listed as the responsibility of the federal government in the US Constitution.

The police, fire fighters and trash removal are not listed in the US Constitution but are left to the responsibility of local governments (state, county and city).

And we as taxpayers pay for all of it.

*The Nameless GenX Blog seems to have been changed since finding the linked story.

Rights vs. Power

Sometimes I wonder if anyone knows the difference between the terms rights and power as it is used when discussing the people's relationship to government these days.  Do you?  I think I know the difference and I'd like to share.

People and groups who want more from society and feel they need leverage always use the term "rights" when describing their issue, and always using it incorrectly.  This misuse of terminology confuses the issues and allows what would otherwise be dismissed out of hand, now are considered for action by serious minded scholars, political leaders, activists, and judges, along with all of their sycophants falling in line.

In this country people do have rights - protected rights.  We Americans revel in our personal freedoms and the exercise our constitutionally protected rights daily and without fear of reprisal.  But that is changing.  Special interest groups are defining their issues as rights when there is little proof that anyone's rights are involved. We want our rights to protect us, not to be bastardized and abused by special interest groups.

What groups?  Unions for starters, who claim the "right" to hold corporations hostage for personal profit and demand government support them.

I suppose I should define what a right is and how it should been seen and used.  If you read the US Declaration of Independence it says, in part,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and [certain] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:"

What this says to me is that the protected rights, as defined in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, do not emanate from the government.  The rights are with us long before government gets involved. and their involvement is limited to protecting those rights and sometimes, under certain conditions, place limits on the exercise of those rights.

The conditions? When people violate the rights of others.  This is what "protected" means.  Government did not create rights.  Government was created to protect rights.

Some argue that groups of people have rights, but until recently there was no law, no state or US Code that specifies any group should be afforded some right due to their group membership.  Politicians have been giving certain groups power, but not rights.  For instance, the government affords special protection to unions to ensure that businesses don't remove their power to organize. The legacy media will broadcast stories about labor union rights.  But I would submit that the labor unions and such rights as they may claim only apply as written in their contracts between the union members and the company where they are employed.  That makes it less of a right and merely a contractual relationship.

Gay groups claim a right to marry.  This is profound because no one possesses a government sponsored or protected "right to marry".  Individuals in the USA are free to pursue whatever pleases them with the government staying out of the way to "insure domestic Tranquility" (US Constitution preamble) as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other individuals. Government's involvement in marriage is pretty much limited to contract and common law that ensures family property considerations and settling disputes (such as property division during a divorce and inheriting (along with taxing) property).  There are no protected marriage rights except when settling disputes in a court of law or through arbitration. I discuss the Gay marriage case, Proposition 8, in another post *.

Government agencies have power, but no rights.  None, nix, nada, zero.  Government, although comprised of people who do have rights, does not have a right to anything. No property rights, no religious rights, no 5th amendment rights, etc. It has "just power". That  power is temporarily borrowed from the people for the express purpose to...

"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

They can only exercise the power loaned to them by the people. When considering or election system, that power is only temporary for those in office. The same must be true of groups, such as unions and PAC's.  Though courts have assigned rights to a type of 'group' (corporations), but those are very limited. For instance, corporations have the right no right to vote, but they do have the rights listed in Amendments 4 through 8.

A quick search will reveal the misuse of the term "rights" has been deeply ingrained in our news and educational institutions. There are examples of this maddening trend everywhere.

ABC news asks, "How Does the President Have the Right to Target for Killing a US Citizen?" It goes on to say that the ACLU "sought to challenge the White House assertion that it had the constitutional right to kill Awlaki.

 Uh, no he does not.  He may have the "power" to target American born terrorists (another argument), but the president does not have the right to use his powers.  He has the power to use his powers..

Even PBS confuses the term with this, "Though the Constitution gave the president the right to veto bills from Congress," in a discussion of the history of the veto power of the president. (The power of the Presidency, The Veto).  Again, it's not his right, but it is within his specific constitutional powers - They even say it's a power - hello.

Anyone watching National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis' testimony on O'Reilly, along with Megyn Kelly's assessment of his testimony a short time ago (National Park Service under fire for helping 'Occupy', Jan 26, 2012), witnessed yet another mischaracterization of rights vs. power. I was surprised that Ms. Kelly, a lawyer, has fallen into the trap of using the word rights when she should use the word power. He is using the power afforded him by his job.

People have rights. Government has power. People who work for the government exercise that power in the performance of their lawful duties. Protected individual rights have nothing to do with it.

So why is it important to use the correct term?  The answer lies in the political nature of this country's bumper sticker politics and the sound bite news . The politicians may support some group, such as gays, and using the term "gay rights" carries much more weight among the voting public than it would by trying to sell "gay power".

Please use the proper terminology.  it will move this country a long way towards the freedom loving and prosperous country that we always have been.

A discussion of rights is located (here)


* CA Proposition 8 Declared Unconstitutional by Gay Judge.

African Americans Getting it Right - Democrats Have Never Worked For Your Success

I heard a political advertisement featuring an African-American telling like it is - and has been.  Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican", was very uplifting and more importantly - sites the honest and true history for the Democratic Party and the seemingly high minded goals that have done nothing but depress personal freedom in the Black community and the country in general.




There have been more African Americans revealing the truth of the Democratic Party's machinations just before this year's election day. Here is a story about the realization that Democrats and many African-American politicians are not looking out for you and your family. "Chicago Activists Unchained, Destroy Black Leadership" - Rebel Pundit - Direct link to video on You Tube.

There needs to be more people spreading the truth of failed policies that are sold as "help" for the people, but really only becomes help for politicians and bureaucrats.